consecutive_candles_scan

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which the description does not contradict. However, it adds no additional behavioral context such as rate limits, data freshness, or what happens when no patterns are found. The description contributes minimal extra transparency beyond the annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a compact docstring with a one-line summary followed by a clear parameter list. Every sentence provides necessary information, and the structure is front-loaded. No redundant or tangential content.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no output schema, the description adequately explains the tool's purpose and parameters but omits details about the output format (e.g., list of coins with scores) and error conditions. For a scanning tool, these would enhance completeness. The description is adequate but has clear gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by explaining each parameter, including pattern_type as 'bullish (growing candles) or bearish (shrinking candles)', candle_count as 'Number of consecutive candles to check (2-5)', and min_growth as 'Minimum growth percentage for each candle'. All six parameters are covered, adding clear meaning beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it scans for coins with consecutive growing/shrinking candles pattern, using specific verb 'scan for' and resource 'coins with consecutive...pattern'. It distinguishes from siblings like bollinger_scan or volume_breakout_scanner by specifying the unique pattern type.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implicitly suggests use when scanning for a specific candle pattern but offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., advanced_candle_pattern, volume_breakout_scanner). No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.